Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision

There are 311627 comments on the Newsday story from Jan 22, 2008, titled Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision. In it, Newsday reports that:

Thousands of abortion opponents marched from the National Mall to the Supreme Court on Tuesday in their annual remembrance of the court's Roe v. Wade decision.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#274655 Jan 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
No,Ocean has only been "promoting" negativity about prenthood, and that's all.
You don't get a positive from a negative, nit wit.
No, she's been doing exactly what I said. Just like the school program with the dolls was exactly what I said it was.

And yes, if it makes a teen think twice, and decide not to have sex until they're older, it will be a positive from a negative.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#274656 Jan 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
The clueless one is you, the idiot who can't read for comprehension.
He's just saying that when people flirt with each other, usually they put on their best "face", as it were. Not usually done when smelly and shitty looking.
Get a freakin' clue how to understand what you're reading. Your stupidity and ignorant self-righteous indignation about something someone has NOT said is embarrassing to watch.
No, Moron, that's not what he was saying.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274657 Jan 5, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
She's listing just the hardships because so many on your side want to pretend there is ONLY joy.
This isn't about abortion, but abstaining from sex. How can there be an abortion if there isn't a pregnancy, Moron?
You fool. That's what I've promoted here since being here; preventing pregnancy. It's your side that claims it can't be done all the time, when millions of people succeeding at it prove you wrong.

No one claims parenthood is "only" joy. Those claims are being made because of idiots like those on your side claiming that KILLING your unborn child is the answer to everey damned hardship known to man, and every damned problem in the world.

No, Ocean's posts are a stupid result of what began in the posts of the pro-choicers.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274658 Jan 5, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No one claimed the dolls worked.
Still, you were wrong, weren't you?
Only wrong in thinking the program taught through positive, by teaching responsibility.

Not wrong in that teaching through negativity didn't work, dim wit.

Ocean's posts are based on the same negativity as the doll program was, and i already said teaching through negativity will never result in a positive outcome.

NOT WRONG, you were.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274659 Jan 5, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, she's been doing exactly what I said. Just like the school program with the dolls was exactly what I said it was.
And yes, if it makes a teen think twice, and decide not to have sex until they're older, it will be a positive from a negative.
The program with the dolls didn't work because of what reason? It was teaching the wrong message; how HARD it was to be a parent, just as Ocean's posts do. It resulted in the very opposite of what was intended. it resulted in negatives, the girls though being parents would be easier.

Promoting what's negative never results in a positive. Teaching responsibility, which is a positive, will result in a positive; they'll BE responsible.

It's a very simple formula of life that not one of you understands.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#274660 Jan 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
You fool. That's what I've promoted here since being here; preventing pregnancy. It's your side that claims it can't be done all the time, when millions of people succeeding at it prove you wrong.
No one claims parenthood is "only" joy. Those claims are being made because of idiots like those on your side claiming that KILLING your unborn child is the answer to everey damned hardship known to man, and every damned problem in the world.
No, Ocean's posts are a stupid result of what began in the posts of the pro-choicers.
This post is complete nonsense. Not one bit of it is true.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274661 Jan 5, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Moron, that's not what he was saying.
YES, he was saying that if women wear something "sexy" going out without their men to a store even, that men might flirt with them, where if she was sweaty and wearing baggy clothes after working out or something, the flirting by a man may not happen. This is probably true.

What I don't agree with is the part about the women flirting back. Women can dress sexy just to feel good for themselves, and that has nothing to do with wanting other men to flirt with them. It could even be that she's meeting her own husband for lunch or dinner after stopping to run errands.

I don't agree with what he's saying, but I understood what he was saying, even if he worded himself in a wrong way.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#274662 Jan 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
Only wrong in thinking the program taught through positive, by teaching responsibility.
Not wrong in that teaching through negativity didn't work, dim wit.
Ocean's posts are based on the same negativity as the doll program was, and i already said teaching through negativity will never result in a positive outcome.
NOT WRONG, you were.
You were wrong in saying it wasn't what I claimed. It was.

Yes, YOU were wrong. I said nothing about the efficiency of the program.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274663 Jan 5, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
This post is complete nonsense. Not one bit of it is true.
LOL, right, because a proven liar and bonehead like you said so.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#274664 Jan 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
The program with the dolls didn't work because of what reason? It was teaching the wrong message; how HARD it was to be a parent, just as Ocean's posts do. It resulted in the very opposite of what was intended. it resulted in negatives, the girls though being parents would be easier.
Promoting what's negative never results in a positive. Teaching responsibility, which is a positive, will result in a positive; they'll BE responsible.
It's a very simple formula of life that not one of you understands.
Liar. That is not the reason it failed. Nothing in that article said, or implied, anything of the kind.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274665 Jan 5, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, Moron, that's not what he was saying.
IF a woman isn't happy at home and needs some male attention, she won't be looking for it all sweaty and in baggy pants. She WILL dress attractively and wear perfume. He's not wrong about that.

What I don't agree with is if he's saying it about any married woman, including the happily married ones. The happily married ones can dress sexy and not flirt back with any man who flirts with her.

Why are you so incapable of expressing that to him? Because you don't get what he's saying in the first place and got your panties in a wad about it.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#274667 Jan 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
YES, he was saying that if women wear something "sexy" going out without their men to a store even, that men might flirt with them, where if she was sweaty and wearing baggy clothes after working out or something, the flirting by a man may not happen. This is probably true.
What I don't agree with is the part about the women flirting back. Women can dress sexy just to feel good for themselves, and that has nothing to do with wanting other men to flirt with them. It could even be that she's meeting her own husband for lunch or dinner after stopping to run errands.
I don't agree with what he's saying, but I understood what he was saying, even if he worded himself in a wrong way.
What you said earlier is not what he said.

And so, you don't agree with part of what he said, yet you're not posting to him, are you? Coward.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#274668 Jan 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, right, because a proven liar and bonehead like you said so.
You have never proven me a liar, nor has anyone else. Stop trying to change the subject.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274669 Jan 5, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
This post is complete nonsense. Not one bit of it is true.
Lily wrote: "You fool. That's what I've promoted here since being here; preventing pregnancy. It's your side that claims it can't be done all the time, when millions of people succeeding at it prove you wrong."

That's very true. No nonsense about it.

Lil Lily wrote: "No one claims parenthood is "only" joy. Those claims are being made because of idiots like those on your side claiming that KILLING your unborn child is the answer to everey damned hardship known to man, and every damned problem in the world."

Again true. You pro-choicers have used every excuse in the book to try to justify killing the human life in utero from a woman already having 15 kids to world population. Including pooping on adoption with horror stories of adopted kids.

Lil Lily wrote: "No, Ocean's posts are a stupid result of what began in the posts of the pro-choicers."

True. It's pro-choicers who post negatives about following through with a pregnancy or raising the child, and the pro-lifers have posted the positives for balance. NOT the other way around as you claimed.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274670 Jan 5, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar. That is not the reason it failed. Nothing in that article said, or implied, anything of the kind.
You're the liar, again.

Yes, it did imply and state it outright, you ignorant lying buffoon.

http://center4research.org/medical-care-for-a...

"Perhaps one of the most important findings had to do with the girls’ attitudes toward being a teenage parent. Out of 109 girls in the study, 13 (12%) wanted to be teen parents before they cared for BTIO, and 16 (15%) wanted to be teen parents after they cared for the doll. That’s right, three more girls actually wanted to be a teen parent after having taken care of the doll!"

Another finding was "This means that the girls who “learned the most”(who found the experience to be much harder than they anticipated) were also the most likely to think that a real baby would be easier to care for than the doll was! The researchers attributed this unexpected finding to the tendency of kids this age to think of themselves as invincible or immune to certain kinds of problems that only affect “other people.” It is also possible, though, that since these girls had some experience with real babies, they also knew that real babies provide some positive payback for all the hard work: a human response to being cared for and loved, such as a genuine smile."

As I had said in one of my posts, teens don't think anything negative will happen to them so teaching them through negative reinforcement does NOT work.

Also as I said, it states that this program failed because the negatives being taught about how hard parenting would be BACKFIRED. It did not result in a positive, it resulted in a negative.

"It is also possible, though, that since these girls had some experience with real babies, they also knew that real babies provide some positive payback for all the hard work: a human response to being cared for and loved, such as a genuine smile."

Unfortunately, many girls lacking love at home think that having a baby will give them that unconditional love they crave, and all the negative reinforcement about parenting doesn't do a bit of good to discourage it.

As I have said, there's a way to teach kids and THIS way of negatives about parenting does NOT work.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274671 Jan 5, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
What you said earlier is not what he said.
And so, you don't agree with part of what he said, yet you're not posting to him, are you? Coward.
Not interested in his subject matter, so no. I just wanted to point out your lack of reading for comprehension was failing you again.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274672 Jan 5, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You have never proven me a liar, nor has anyone else. Stop trying to change the subject.
Oh Bitty, I've proven it so many times and all ytour denials don't change that.

I can change the subject and still OWN you. I can multi-task that way.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274673 Jan 5, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You have never proven me a liar, nor has anyone else. Stop trying to change the subject.
FYI,the post of mine following this one of yours was going right back to the subject you accused me of changing. Funny how that happened, isn't it.

“Pro-Life”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#274674 Jan 5, 2013
I've made my points, proved you PCers are idiots about how to teach anything and I must go now. Making it known for any ignorant buffoon like Bitty or Fool before they make fools of themselves trying to claim I "ran away". lol

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#274675 Jan 5, 2013
lil Lily wrote:
<quoted text>
IF a woman isn't happy at home and needs some male attention, she won't be looking for it all sweaty and in baggy pants. She WILL dress attractively and wear perfume. He's not wrong about that.
What I don't agree with is if he's saying it about any married woman, including the happily married ones. The happily married ones can dress sexy and not flirt back with any man who flirts with her.
Why are you so incapable of expressing that to him? Because you don't get what he's saying in the first place and got your panties in a wad about it.
He made no mention of the woman not being happy at home.

YOU are the one not getting him.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wethersfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min VetnorsGate 1,419,638
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 21 min Not Documented 61,059
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 3 hr Ize Found 70,958
News The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) Sat Hipocrit 20,505
Chris Powell Editor of the JI investigated for ... Aug 22 HCourantsub 1
News SEA CLIFF: Paramedic arrested on child harm cha... (Jun '08) Aug 21 Greg 55
CAR Accident on Friday April 22, 2016 Apr '16 MarcusT20073 1

Wethersfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Wethersfield Mortgages